* You can also get your polling location by texting "where" to 30644 from your mobile phone.

* These resources are excellent, but not perfect, so to double-check information, you can use the Voting Information Project application to find contact information for your state or local election official.

What do I need to bring?

* Voting ID laws vary from state to state, but if you have ID, bring it. To find out the details, check out your state's info at http://www.866ourvote.org/state.

I think you mean the Republican Party has left us. I know you have amnesia and have forgotten the 00s and you are sorely hoping the voters have forgotten it as well. But the debt we have is 90% (on the conservative end) from Republican spending in the 00s.

Okay SW, explain Jane to me. I see she is gone now but that name was so familiar to me, but I can't place it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 2, 2010, at 10:24 AM

Jane Kleeb is the wife of Scott Kleeb who is a Democrat who has run for office a few times in Nebraska and lost. Jane is the head of boldnebraska a Democrat organization of some sort. She has previously been involved with Young Democrats and has been a political commentator on TV a couple of times.

I felt the poster who used that screen name, I think we all can guess who it was, was doing so inappropriately and so I flagged it, I then asked him to remove it himself. I must admit I'm impressed in how fast the webmaster was on it.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 2, 2010, at 10:30 AM

Btw, Scott lost in my opinion because he is a carpetbagger, and most Nebraskans don't like that sort of stuff.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 2, 2010, at 10:31 AM

I have to agree with you on that last part SWNebr.

After some research it wasn't Jane that I was familiar with but her husband Scott Kleeb.

She is also running for the Hastings school board.

Whatever the case, janekleeb was obviously not the real person. That was abundantly clear when the poster made a comment on one of the other blogs that said (paraphrasing) "Out here in California". I'm glad that you took the initiative and that the web master was also so quick on the draw.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 2, 2010, at 1:05 PM

Now Obama has to hope he has a valid birth certificate.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Nov 2, 2010, at 8:24 PM

Watching MSNBC. When are the liberals going to understand what this election is all about? You guys blew the last 2 years and now you guys are going to make matters worse by acting like children.

This election is about not becoming Socialist and give economic certainty so the private sector can create jobs.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Nov 2, 2010, at 9:10 PM

Still watching MSNBC. I think that I understand liberals more. You guys do not live in my reality. You don't go to work everyday. You don't hire people. You don't worry about paying for your kids clothes or shoes or dental work. You guys don't worry about taking care of your aging parents. You guys don't worry about your retirement.

You guys simply think that is the role of government.

I also don't understand that Rachel Maddow person. She is not funny, not smart, just angry.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Nov 2, 2010, at 9:31 PM

Wow wallis that is truly some hateful rhetoric you just unleashed there.

"You guys blew the last 2 years and now you guys are going to make matters worse by acting like children."

Oh yes, because we didn't just have two years of Republicans doing that exact same thing and a promise from the Republican leadership to keep doing the same thing even after winning the majority in the House.

You care clearly yet another person who knows nothing of liberalism so you just make it up.

What a hateful man you are.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 6:21 AM

I kept waiting last night for this tidal wave, or earthquake, or hurricane that had been promised for the last two years and it never quite happened. This wasn't even a typical off year election. This is the first time in the last 100 years that if one of the houses of Congresses switched parties both did.

The Democrats retain control of the Senate and now we have a true government of checks and balances. The next two years should be very interesting. I wonder if the Republicans will keep their promise of giving tax cuts across the board and increasing the debt.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 6:24 AM

"Oh yes, because we didn't just have two years of Republicans doing that exact same thing and a promise from the Republican leadership to keep doing the same thing even after winning the majority in the House."

Hey Mike, good job there, way to counter wallis' assertion that liberals are acting like children by using a childish response. You essentially said, its ok for me to do it because you did it.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 8:35 AM

Mike:

"This is the first time in the last 100 years that if one of the houses of Congresses switched parties both did."

Both houses didn't switch this time. Did you mistype or am I not understanding your argument? I think you meant that this is the first time that only one house switched parties without the other also switching. Is that what you mean? Please clarify it for me.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 8:45 AM

Yes that is what I meant SW. I apologize. My statement should have read that this is the first time in the last 100 years where one house switched parties but the other did not.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 11:01 AM

No that is not essentially what I said SW. That's what you claim that I essentially said. Another case of you assigning meanings to my statements that simply are not there.

My point is that Wallis is already complaining about how the Democrats are going to act, despite the fact that his party did just that for the past two years and he had no issues with it.

So far all I have heard from the Democrats is talk of compromise and all I have heard from the Republicans is demands that the Democrats do what the Republicans want them to do.

I hope the Democrats are not as childish as the Republicans were for two years and they can work together to move this country forward. But I wouldn't fault the Democrats from giving the Republicans a taste of their own medicine. I hope, though, that is the former and not the latter.

But please SW please elaborate how do you get me essentially saying "its ok for me to do it because you did it." from "Oh yes, because we didn't just have two years of Republicans doing that exact same thing and a promise from the Republican leadership to keep doing the same thing even after winning the majority in the House."

I really want to know because I didn't even mention Democrats or myself in that statement.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 11:06 AM

Mike:

First I will address the childish issue:

When Wallis said Democrats were acting childish, you replied: "Oh yes, because we didn't just have two years of Republicans doing that exact same thing and a promise from the Republican leadership to keep doing the same thing even after winning the majority in the House." Implicit in this response is the point that the Republicans were doing the same thing that Wallis said Democrats are now doing. I extrapolated from that you were arguing sauce for the goose (a long established legal precedent :P). If that isn't what you were arguing then I will ammend my statement to say that I interpret you essentially saying if it offends you so much. I think any rational person would interpret the same thing.

If you said neither party should act this way you would have some legs. However, you said that if the Democrats act in the same way you "wouldn't fault" them. I would, just as I fault the Republicans.

See, this is a problem I have with a lot of what you argue. You say that for someone to complain when Democrats do something Republicans do is hypocritical yet when you do it it is fine. You ignore the possibility that it is not ok for either party to do whatever the topic at hand is.

Second: Thanks for the softball, (as you have said)

1910: Democrats gain control of House, Republicans retain control of Senate

1916: Republicans gain control of House, Democrats retain control of Senate

1953: Republicans gain control of Senate, Democrats retain control of House.

1981: Republicans gain control of Senate, Democrats retain control of House.

2001: Democrats gain control of Senate, Republicans retain control of House.

You are clearly wrong.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 11:57 AM

Isn't Mike a History teacher SW? Are you sure that your facts are correct? Surely someone working toward his masters would know.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 12:09 PM

Sir Didymus,

I don't think Mike is actively teaching so maybe that's why his history is fuzzy, maybe he's out of practice. Or perhaps I have the relationship reversed or something. I could be wrong and he may be teaching again. I'm absolutely positive he couldn't be engaging in the "revisionist history" he hates so much. ;)

Or you might be correct and my numbers are wrong, I'd be happy for somone to correct me. I really hate to give false information.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 12:15 PM

Aside from the personal attacks I will make the corrections that I missed on.

This is the first time since the 17th Amendment gave direct election of Senators to the American people (as opposed to state legislatures) in 1914 that the House was won by the opposing party but not the Senate.

Once again, however you are putting words and thoughts to me that I have never said. You stretch out of the realm of reality just in order to prove me wrong on something even by making it up or taking what I said out of context.

My omission of criticizing the Democrats for something they have yet to even do should not be considered as saying it is fine for them to do but not fine for the other party to have done it.

I didn't like it when the Republicans acted like a bunch of children and voted no or held up nomination of bills or people that they supported just to say no. I won't like if the Democrats do the same exact crap. It gets nothing accomplished and it is counter active.

When I said I would not fault them for doing it, it means exactly that I would not fault them for doing so, but that doesn't mean as you reach that I would give the Democrats a pass for doing so, it just means exactly as what I said.

I do enjoy how you continue to expect me to trash Democrats at every turn or whenever you want me to, yet you hardly, if ever (no calling Sam out is not the same because the last I checked he is not a national political figure or elected one) go after Republicans.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 12:51 PM

"Once again, however you are putting words and thoughts to me that I have never said. You stretch out of the realm of reality just in order to prove me wrong on something even by making it up or taking what I said out of context."

How in the world do you claim I made up what you said or took it out of context? I specifically asked you to clarify your position, you did, I then pointed out you were wrong. You then change your argument, funny when you always decry others for "changing arguments".

"When I said I would not fault them for doing it, it means exactly that I would not fault them for doing so, but that doesn't mean as you reach that I would give the Democrats a pass for doing so, it just means exactly as what I said."

I think you are misleading yourself to justify your position or you have little understanding. Not faulting someone for something IS giving them a pass.

Although I don't "go after" Republicans enough for your tastes, I also don't give them a pass for doing things that I fault the Democrats for doing. I also, if you notice, don't go after Democrats, I point out the inconsistencies in your arguments. Or are you now a national political figure? Now that Republicans have some power I'm sure I'll have more to complain about them. Funny how you decry the Republicans for obstructing when if the Democrats could have united, they would not have needed any Republican votes, why don't Liberals ever mention that?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 1:35 PM

You are wrong Mike, I don't expect you to trash Democrats. I don't even EXPECT you to be fair in your assessments, I just would like you to be fair. I would like you to be consistent in something other than conservatives=bad, liberals=good. You do everything I expect you to do.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 1:37 PM

"Funny how you decry the Republicans for obstructing when if the Democrats could have united, they would not have needed any Republican votes, why don't Liberals ever mention that?"

We do SW. It's the very reason I didn't vote for the Blanche Lincoln here in Arkansas. I have decried those Democrats who decided that the corporations that were paying them were more important than the people who elected them.

Liberals mention it all the time. Unfortunately that narrative was largely ignored over the past two years.

What is most interesting about this election isn't that the Republicans are now in control of the House or that the Democrats are still in control of the Senate. No, what's more interesting is that the so called moderate majority has largely been voted out. Of the Democrats almost every single Blue Dog was voted out. The liberal bloc of the party is in the majority on the Democratic side. It is the same for the Republicans. There are hardly any moderate Republicans left, the conservative bloc of the party is the majority on the Republican side of Congress.

This election didn't stabilize anything, more politicians on the fringes of both sides were elected into Congress.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 1:47 PM

Did you ever on your blog "go after" Blanche Lincoln for being and obstructionist? If you did I missed it. I have seen you "go after" Republicans for not voting with Democrats many times but I don't remember you doing so with Democrats who voted against Democrat bills.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 2:02 PM

"I have decried those Democrats who decided that the corporations that were paying them were more important than the people who elected them."

Interesting thought, are Liberals the only people who elected Blanche Lincoln, or was she elected by a more conservative electorate? I thought people in Arkansas were center-right on average am I incorrect?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 2:17 PM

I voted. With the exception of Amendment 1, all winners.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 8:56 PM

I believe I publicly stated on here that I was not going to vote for Lincoln in the primary or general (if she made it) based on her votes on health care. I held to my word.

She was elected by Democrats as a whole and some pullover from moderate Conservatives. I have not seen any numbers to back this up but I fully believe that the reason she lost and lost by a landslide is because she lost all of the Liberal caucus and the majority of moderate Conservatives.

What is interesting is that there was one TEA Party candidate in the race, he ran as an Independent and he wasn't even with in sniffing distance.

I see no huge differences between Lincoln and Boozman. The only difference being party affiliation and sex (not saying he won because he is a man, just saying he is a man she is a woman, don't misconstrue that for anything else). I have had dealings with Senator-elect Boozman and found him boorish and very detached from Arkansans that aren't from his political stripe.

I have never gone after Republicans for not voting with Democrats. They are naturally most of the time vote against what the Dems want. My problem in the last two years that on issues that Republicans had supported, amendments that they put in bills (the mandate being one of them), or people up for posts that they supported, they voted no on anyways. That is the obstructionism that I have had issues with. It's not as simple as voting against Democrats it's throwing their own principles out the window to vote against Obama and the Democrats just so they can win an election.

It worked and congratulations are in store. I hope you all don't get buyers remorse when they do the exact same things they have been decrying for the last two years.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 9:03 PM

I might not be a trained historian. but doesn't 1916 come after 1914 when you stated that the 17th amendment came into play? or is SW Nebraskatransplant's facts wrong?

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 9:15 PM

"I didn't like it when the Republicans acted like a bunch of children and voted no or held up nomination of bills or people that they supported just to say no."

"I have never gone after Republicans for not voting with Democrats."

Mike,do you not see the disconnect between those two statements? I hope you would. Did you ever think that maybe some republicans might have voted no against something they previously supported because they are supposed to represent the wishes of thier constituants? If they were notified by their constituants that they did not like what they were supportive they SHOULD change their support.I wouldn't say that that would be voting "just to say no".

Didn't those childish no-voters just pick up a couple of seats?

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 9:24 PM

My God Mike, when are you going to drop the "hate" rhetoric? I just strolled thorugh far enough to see what Wallis said, and your subsequent tantrum.

You DO act like a baby. My 9 and 6 year olds aren't even that big on drama.

You kinda sound like, "mommie he hates me! mommie he hates me!"

He said some people are acting childish. Wow. There's a lot of hate packed into that. I don't even know where to begin disecting the hateful tone there.

I'm not even going to go into the historic defeat of Democrats here, but I just can't get over your perverted reality of what people are saying to you.

What you do is a diservice to mankind while you're on your liberal education seminars. Before long Mike, no one is going to know what hate or racism really is. They won't know this not only because of you, but your like-minded media boneheads that do the very same thing. Even Obama is a race-baiter. Some day our kids aren't going to be able to tell the difference between Hitler and Reagan, or Farrakhan and Obama. You seem to label anyone who is not a liberal like you, a hater or a racist. That's just about as lazy as you can get. Find a better, smarter way to debate than to bait people or just plain out tar and feather them.

I can visualize you as a self employed man dealing with customers that are being unreasonable and rude as they sometimes can be and you would just go off on them and call them hate mongers and racists. Is that how you would act face to face, or are you just hiding behind a computer screen.

Get real man, and quit being such a baby....uh ohhhh, there's some hate speech right there, better pass a law against it!

-- Posted by Justin76 on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 10:43 PM

"Some day our kids aren't going to be able to tell the difference between Hitler and Reagan"

We are already there Justin, considering that for two years people have been comparing Obama to Hitler. You are a little late on that bus.

I don't really know where your diatribe was going there Justin, but I wouldn't expect any less of you. You spend an entire post decrying me for doing what you just did.

My comments to wallis were directed at his overall hatred towards me from the beginning. This is nothing new with him. He makes things up whenever he can. He releases peoples information without prior consent and somehow he's the victim. That's classic.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 12:32 AM

Didymus, I certainly do see the disconnect in the two statements when you use them completely out of context like that.

I could explain it to you but considering that I already explained it once and you took it completely out of context I don't see the need to explain it again.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 12:34 AM

After doing some very extensive research I have realized I was wrong. Neither one of my statements were correct.

Here is what I originally wanted to say. Up until this election if the House had never switched majorities in a year that the Senate didn't. That is 96 years.

Here are the examples:

1916 is a misnomer because both parties actually had equal numbers in both houses. In the House each party held 190 seats with the Progressive Party (which at this time in history was much closer aligned with the Republican Party) had 52 seats, Prohibition Party had one seat, Independents held 2

In the Senate the two parties were once again split 42 each with 13 Progressives. In actuality neither party had control of either house.

1918: Both houses switch from Democrats to Republicans

1932: Both houses switch from Republicans to Democrats (with Republicans losing 101 seats in the House)

1946: Both houses switch from Democrats to Republicans

1948: Both houses switch from Republicans to Democrats

1952: Both houses switch from Democrats to Republicans. I have looked up this election SW since you said earlier that the Democrats held the majority from this election. Even after the defection of Senator Morse from Republican to Independent it still gave the Republicans a +1 majority.

1954: Both houses switch from Republican to Democrat

Here's the interesting thing. Between 1950 and 1954 the majority party only had the majority by a +2 or +1 margin. After the 1954 the Democrats would not lose the Senate again until 1980.

1980: The Senate changes to Republican from Democrat but Democrats maintain the House

1986: The Senate changes to Democrat from Republican and Democrats maintain the House

1994: Both houses switch from Democrats to Republicans.

2000: The parties tie but Republicans win the White House therefor giving the Republicans the tie-breaker, Republicans maintain the House.

This was another interesting cycle since the Senate went to work with 17 days left of the Clinton Administration the Democrats initially had control of the Senate with Gore being the tie-breaker. After Bush took office Cheney became the tie-breaker giving control back to the Republicans. They would then lose the power when Senator Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party to be an Independent and caucus with the Democrats. Also in this election future US Attorney General John Ashcroft lost his seat in Missouri to a man who had died.

2006: Both houses switch from Republican to Democrat.

2010: Republicans gain the House, but Democrats maintain the Senate. This is the first time in the 96 years of the 17th Amendment that this occurrence has happened.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 1:37 AM

The only context I've ever heard a comparison of Hitler to Obama is you saying there is.

On the other hand, we heard a lot from the media in Bush's last few years comparing him to Hitler and his admin to the likes of Pol Pot.

You people are truely something to marvel.

And again Mike, just because someone implies you're a bonehead, doesn't mean they hate you. I have family that are complete boneheads that can't get their heads out of the dirty union clouds and I love them to death! You've made yourself a victim in the same regard as you claim wallis has done to himself.

Unlike you, I have met Wallis and know who he is. He's not a hateful person. He's a American Dream sucess story. He didn't sit around and wait for the government to pave the way from him. He made his own way, like millions of others of us are trying to do and resenting the people that want more government do for them what you should have to do on your own. That doesn't mean you hate. I don't why you are the way are, but it's more sad than it is funny that you think we're all so full of hate.

Maybe it's people like you that are driving this polarization in politics and ideology because you simply can't comprehend differences, you only see hate.

And no, that wasn't a diatribe on my part anymore than your slamming reply was on your part.

We are not there yet, maybe you are. At least in my part of the world people still realize that Hitler was true evil, Biblical evil. How could any rational person even compare a normal person to someone who is truly evil in every sense of the word? That's what makes me so mad about you tossing that word around like you own it. You don't own it. It should be reserved for what it was inteded for, true evil. Hate is a powerful word. It doesn't make you more powerful when you use it when you're losing an argument anymore than cursing and disparaging someone will.

Try to have a good day Mike, I know you won't, as there's surely someone hating you today in your mind.

-- Posted by Justin76 on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 10:36 AM

Yep in 1952 elections I accidentally switched the numbers in my head, my bad. Republicans did have control of both houses.

"Here is what I originally wanted to say."

So if you were wrong in what you originally said, why did you blame me for putting words in your mouth or taking your words out of context? I can only go off of what people say, unlike you Mike, I don't have the ability to KNOW what is in others' minds.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 11:01 AM

Maybe I should have been more clear with you SW. I was not referencing the exchange of the House and Senate when I said that you were putting words and thoughts to me. I can almost see why you thought that but no, that's not what I was talking about.

If you would have bothered to read the rest of my comment when I said that you were assigning words and thoughts to me you would have clearly seen that I was referencing your claim that I was essentially saying that it was alright for Democrats to act a certain way but not for Republicans. I attempted to clear it up twice but you still apparently believe that I am talking about Congress switching parties.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 12:09 PM

"The only context I've ever heard a comparison of Hitler to Obama is you saying there is."

Really? Are you truly going to sit there and say that Obama has not been compared to Hitler?

Try Googling Obama, Hitler. There have been billboards put up with the comparison. Glenn Beck has made the comparison. I can't help you if you are going to be so narrow-sided and claim that the only context you've seen is from me. Either you have been turning a blind eye to it all or you are just willfully ignorant.

I have let you go on for two comments now claiming that I have accused Wallis of hate speech. I haven't but that's okay. I have never met the man, but solely from his comments on these boards I find him to be a very hateful, and vindictive person who will do or say anything to put someone he does not agree with in their place. Even if he has to make it up. Is this representative of who he actually is? According to you, no. But I only have these boards to go by.

I also find you to be a hateful and petty person. I don't know if it makes you feel better to come on these boards and completely trash and belittle people that don't agree with you, but from your posts it does appear that way. I don't recall ever seeing a post from you actually being happy about anything or celebrating anything. It's always angry and vengeful.

At the very least wallis and I have something we can agree on and that's the Oklahoma Sooners.

I always have a good day, Justin. I wake up every morning thankful that I am alive today and living in the best country in the world. It's odd though that you run me down for making a judgment on wallis based on what I see here that you say is completely false from the real word. You then turn around and make the exact same judgment on me based on what you read from me on here. Isn't life grand where you can fault someone for doing something you just did?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 12:20 PM

"I have let you go on for two comments now claiming that I have accused Wallis of hate speech."

I'm glad mine aren't the only posts you don't read before you reply. Where did Justin say you accused Wallis of hate speech?

"I also find you to be a hateful and petty person."

Do you find anyone who disagrees with you to NOT be a hateful person, you spend so much time going on about people hating you, maybe you should change your name to Rod Smart?

SW's philosophical question of the day: Do you feel you are a victim because you are Liberal or are you a Liberal because you feel you are a victim?

How has Wallis shown he is hateful? Other than his extremist reaction to what he assumed was a homosexual come on line, what has he said or done that is so hateful?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 3:36 PM

"SW's philosophical question of the day: Do you feel you are a victim because you are Liberal or are you a Liberal because you feel you are a victim?"

I'm not a victim of anything so I really do not get this reference.

Michael's simple question of the day: Do you know what Liberalism is, and if so, what are its beliefs?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 5:30 PM

"Unfortunately we live in the ear of "no", where Republicans will vote against anything and everything if they think it will bring good news to the Democrats. Even, sadly, if they agree 100% with the bill. "

"I have never gone after Republicans for not voting with Democrats."

This a little more clear? when you use absolute terms like NEVER you might want to take those blogs down that can contradict your statements. Or am I taking it out of context again. I would post the entire blog that it came out of, but since you already have explained it, I dont care to. Or do you not consider a whole blog mainly dedicated to the topic of republicans voting with democrats as "going after"?

It is also interesting that despite all the times you "know" what a vast majority of people are thinking, you get your knickers in a twist over someone else assuming they know what you know.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 8:45 PM

"I'm not a victim of anything so I really do not get this reference."

"I have grown tired. I am tired that when I come on this site I am treated as if I am evil. I am tired that when I defend my beliefs I am treated as if I am trying to destroy this country and that I am un American, simply because I am a liberal."

Remember, take down the contradicting blogs before you post comments! How are you gonna get anywhere pretending to be an honest upright person when you make it so EASY for people to discredit you? I had to go back a ways for the first one but, cmon, this one was the blog you did right before this one!

Before you jump my case on being a hateful hateful person, I would like to point out to you that you do not know my outlook. It is a shame that you and eddy are the only ones here espousing the left's viewpoint.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 11:07 PM

How do you get that the second comment is me claiming to be a victim. I just don't see it Didymus. Apparently I can't be tired of being treated a certain way simply because of the way I believe?

I don't think you are hateful Didymus I think you just read things into comments that simply aren't there.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 11:15 PM

Since you are on this jaunt of pouring over all my blogs could you please tell me where I have ever said that I know what a vast majority of people are thinking?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 11:16 PM

Told you guys that MSNBC was going off the deep end. Using this Olbermann "excuse" to can him and the rest of his cronies means that the liberal agenda doesn't produce ratings.

Olberman gave those guys the opportunity to can him on a technicality and they are doing it. If MSNBC was pulling in ratings the network would just have Keith give an equal amount to a charity. But, those guys have had two years with their "ideal" people in office and their ratings are terrible. Maddow and Olbermann are jokes that are not funny. Maddow is a drinking game in college towns. She is a joke and doesn't know it.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 6:39 AM

"Maddow is a drinking game in college towns." Do you know this as a fact or are you once again making it up. Why the distaste specifically directed at Maddow?

The last time I checked Olbermann had not been fired, you might want to check your sources. If MSNBC wants to get rid of their highest rated star for giving donations (though their resident conservative has done the exact same thing) then that's their choice.

It's not really even a technicality. He hasn't actually violated any rules, since the actual rule is only for NBC News journalists (he is an opinion host on MSNBC) and when the actual policy says that the SHOULD get permission not MUST get permission, this is just head Phil Griffin showing his true political stripes.

Honestly, I hope that Olbermann doesn't go back to MSNBC and finally makes the move to CNN. MSNBCs ratings will plummet without Olbermann on the air, and they will lose their only host that ever actually competed against the Fox News cavalcade of hosts (who interestingly enough not only give to Republican candidates but host fundraising dinners for Republican candidates).

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 10:23 AM

By the way, wallis, why the personal attacks on Olbermann and Maddow? It is really odd that you would go after them like that, especially Maddow who isn't even involved in any of this.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 10:32 AM

Looks like you are wrong again, wallis. Keith Olbermann will return to his show on Tuesday night. That's a pretty far cry from being canned as you had previously claimed he had been.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 11:43 AM

Actually, Maddow did a fairly interesting piece the other day outlining the different amounts that all the FOX news "correspondents" had given. Very illuminating.

-- Posted by Damu on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 8:02 PM

She is actually really good at reporting facts once you get through all the mud-slinging from her detractors from trashing her looks to calling her men's names because she is a lesbian.

It's funny, though, that the same people who will yell and scream about how Sarah Palin is mistreated are either quite or join in when the sophomoric jokes are thrown at Maddow.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 10:39 PM

I'm sorry I missed this little nugget SW, maybe you can explain a little more in depth:

"I don't even EXPECT you to be fair in your assessments, I just would like you to be fair."

You don't expect me to to be fair, you just want me to be fair?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 15, 2010, at 9:35 AM

Once again Wallis, you have been caught making stories up. Olbermann wasn't canned as you claim he was, neither were his cronies (whoever they may be). Yet you offer no correction. Typical Wallis, he can dish it but he can't take it.